Global Warming Hoax - Leading Scientists Debunk Climate Alarmism

One of the main establishment lies is Global Warming, a cover for the Earth changes anticipated to be caused by Planet X.

In their recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” a group of sixteen world-renowned scientists decry the unscientific alarmism over “global warming,” citing numerous inconvenient facts that dispute global warming claims. Here is a video interview with signatory William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University:

Their message to policymakers?

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. . . . Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

This statement follows up on the public resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) in which he states:

I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The group of scientists note the following facts that refute climate alarmist claims:

1. The lack of global warming for well over 10 years now:

This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections–suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

2. CO2 is not a pollutant:

CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. The smear campaigns by the warming establishment are outrageous:

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the Journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

4. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before–for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

The scientists then address the key issue of why there is so much intolerance and corruption among global-warming proponents, and the answer they give is sadly, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Signatories:

Claude Allegre, former Director, Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of ParisJ. Scott Armstrong, Co-Founder, Journal of Forecasting and International Journal of ForecastingJan Breslow, Head, Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller UniversityRoger Cohen, Fellow, American Physical SocietyEdward David, Member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of SciencesWilliam Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton UniversityMichael Kelly, Professor of Technology, University of CambridgeWilliam Kininmonth, former Head of Climate Research, Australian Bureau of MeteorologyRichard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MITJames McGrath, Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Technical UniversityRodney Nichols, former President and CEO, New York Academy of SciencesBurt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOneHarrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. SenatorNir Shaviv, Professor of Astrophysics, Hebrew UniversityHenk Tennekes, former Director, Royal Dutch Meteorological ServiceAntonio Zichichi, President, World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

You need to be a member of Earth Changes and the Pole Shift to add comments!

Climate scientist Jennifer Marohasy and radio technician Lance Pidgeon visit the weather station at Goulburn Airport that measured a record low of -10.4C on July 2

11 September, 2017. "The results of an independent review of the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather stations, which found there was decades-old hardware and clear failures in its bureaucratic processes, have prompted calls for a parliamentary inquiry into temperature manipulation.

The executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, John Roskam, said the review raised critical questions about the accuracy of the bureau’s data after two sites were found to have equipment incapable of measuring extremely low temperatures.<...>“The bureau has now acknowledged that for many years temperature readings have been wrong for at least two weather stations.<...>Dr Marohasy, a senior fellow at the institute, said: “The bureau claims to have a network of 695 automatic weather stations across Australia, are they seriously suggesting the only two that have issues are the two that I raised?"

7 September, 2017. "Decades-old hardware and outdated management practices must be overhauled at the Bureau of Meteorology after extremely low temperature readings at two NSW sites were misreported, an expert review has found. A review into the bureau’s automatic weather stations, sparked by a series of reports in The Australian, has found there was equipment failure at Goulburn and Thredbo, hardware was “not fit for purpose”, and there were “clearly failures” in systems of bureaucracy put in place back in the 1990s.

<...>Scientist Jennifer Marohasy said for the bureau to dismiss the missing temperatures as technical faults was “nonsense”.

“The bureau is taking us for fools,” Dr Marohasy said. “For them to suggest there’s a problem with the equipment, and only those two, and that they discovered it, is a fabrication.’’<...>“The bureau failed to adequately communicate the limitations of the MSI1 card to its field staff. This replacement was made by bureau field officers who were unaware of the difference in temperature range capabilities by the two cards.”"

Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural - Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbot study

This seems to be dramatic evidence of the Earth wobble, and how it has increased during the past couple years! What will the Global Warming advocates say now? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-... The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’ Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change. But seven years after his warning, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

As we stated at the start of the ZetaTalk saga, the Global Warming myth was perpetrated as a cover for the approach of Planet X. Tugging at the Earth from afar, Planet X was roiling the core, and when it arrived in the inner solar system in 2003 the Earth wobble likewise increased activity. The Earth was heating up, bottom up, as the melting permafrost showed. Increased carbon emissions had nothing to do with this, as heat rises, nor does warmer air create more volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. The myth was supported by the UN, who participated in the fraud, and even after being exposed the myth lives on as an aware public is terrifying the participants. They would be blamed.

21 August, 2017 by Jennifer Marohasy."AFTER deconstructing 2,000-year old proxy-temperature series back to their most basic components, and then rebuilding them using the latest big data techniques, John Abbot and I show what global temperatures might have done in the absence of an industrial revolution. The results from this novel technique, just published in GeoResJ [1], accord with climate sensitivity estimates from experimental spectroscopy but are at odds with output from General Circulation Models.

According to mainstream climate science, most of the recent global warming is our fault – caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide. The rational for this is a speculative theory about the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide that dates back to 1896. It’s not disputed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, what is uncertain is the sensitivity of the climate to increasing atmospheric concentrations.

This sensitivity may have been grossly overestimated by Svante Arrhenius more than 120 years ago, with these overestimations persisting in the computer-simulation models that underpin modern climate science [2]. We just don’t know; in part because the key experiments have never been undertaken [2].

<....>

Proxy temperature record (blue) and ANN projection (orange) based on input from spectral analysis for this Northern Hemisphere multiproxy. The ANN was trained for the period 50 to 1830; test period was 1830 to 2000.

To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and down over the last 2,000 years – spiking during the Medieval Warm Period and then again recently to about 1980 as shown in Figure 12 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles. Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation.

In our new paper in GeoResJ, we not only use the latest techniques in big data to show that there would very likely have been significant warming to at least 1980 in the absence of industrialisation, we also calculate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 0.6°C. This is the temperature increase expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is an order of magnitude less than estimates from General Circulation Models, but in accordance from values generated from experimental spectroscopic studies, and other approaches reported in the scientific literature [9,10,11,12,13,14].

The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques (such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series."

18 August, 2017. (Author: GRAHAM LLOYD; SAM BUCKINGHAM-JONES)"Fresh doubts over Bureau of Meteorology temperature records had arisen because a post office worker read the thermometer at the wrong end when the mercury plunged below freezing.

In a new twist, missing records of low temperatures have spread past automatic weather stations to those collected by hand in regional areas.

Taralga Post Office, north of Goulburn in NSW, is the latest unseasonal hotspot in an investigation in which several automatic weather stations have been declared “unfit for purpose”.

The handwritten entry showing -10C for May 10 at Taralga. Picture: John Feder

<...>Mr Seton’s screen shots and meteorological interest predates the scandal that has engulfed weather records at Goulburn and Thredbo Top where temperature readings of below -10C went missing. BoM first claimed the low temperatures had been deleted and in one case at least reinstalled due to “quality control” procedures.

The bureau subsequently said equipment at some AWS network stations was “not fit for purpose”. A review is under way, led by senior BoM staff with outside experts.

Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg said when the review was complete “in coming weeks”, he would make its findings public."

3 August, 2017. "Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon had hard evidence it was cold near Goulburn in the early hours of July 2 this year because his cold water pipes froze, bursting in the wall and breaking the toilet. To be certain, Pidgeon checked the Bureau of Meteorology website and saw the temperature had plunged to minus 10.4C.

Scientist Jennifer Marohasy and amateur meteorologist Lance Pidgeon at the Goulburn airport weather station that recorded minus 10.4C on July 2. Picture: Jane Dempster. Source of image: theaustralian.com.au

“But then I saw something truly bizarre,” Pidgeon says. The temperature recording on BoM’s website adjusted itself to minus 10C and then disappeared from view. That early morning observation by Pigeon has forced BoM to admit shortcomings at an undisclosed number of cold weather locations within the automatic weather station network. A complete review is being undertaken of the network equipment and BoM’s temperature data handling. It is the biggest public scandal for BoM since furious debate was sparked three years ago over its treatment of historic and contemporary temperature records to compile its new homogenised national temperature data series known as ACORN-SAT. For an agency that screams from the rooftops every time the mercury nudges to the slightest record high, losing a half a degree Celsius here and there at the lower extremities is a pretty poor look.

<...> William Kininmonth, a former head of BoM’s National Climate Centre, says he is puzzled that after decades of service the bureau now claims the automatic stations are not fit for purpose at some cold weather locations.

<...> “Why this is happening now, unless they have changed their manufacturers who they get them from, I don’t know." <...>

The major concern has been the secrecy of BoM’s methods, the value judgments involved where changes are made without documented evidence of site changes or other factors, and the inability of those outside the bureau to replicate the adjustments.Concerns have also been raised when homogenised temperature trends have diverged sharply from the raw, observational data.In her introduction to the Institute of Public Affairs book Climate Change: The Facts 2017, Jennifer Marohasy says it is generally stated that without homogenisation, temperature series are unintelligible."

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says he does not believe CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary driver of climate change.

That view is at odds with the conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also told CNBC in March he does not believe global warming is primarily caused by CO2.

DiChristopher, T. (2017, June 19). "Energy Secretary Rick Perry told CNBC on Monday he does not believe carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are the main driver of climate change, joining the EPA administrator in casting doubt on the conclusion of some of the government's top scientists.

Asked whether CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for climate change, Perry told CNBC's "Squawk Box": "No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in." <...> Perry and Pruitt's views are also at odds with the conclusion of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Despite those conclusions, Perry said, "This idea that science is just absolutely settled and if you don't believe it's settled then somehow you're another neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective."

Being a skeptic about climate change issues is "quite all right," he said, suggesting that skepticism is a sign of a "wise, intellectually engaged person." <...>"

That is why Rubbia and Zichichi express themselves in certain terms: the graph that dismantles the theories of Obama and Al Gore

In recent days we have published articles in which we discussed the thought of renowned Italian scientists, Rubbia and Zichichi , about climate change and the influence that man can have in determining them.

The widespread opinion, particularly the American one linked to the political figures of Al Gore and Obama , is that human activity is at the basis of Global Warming (so-called Global Warming) and causes a causal action in provoking Climate change by man. So they tell us ... ..

None of the two scientists we mentioned above ever agreed that it is Man to Determine Climate Change.

Well, a recently published graph, which reports the authoritative Met Office and NOAA data , highlights Global Global Temperature Anomaly, which is the global warming trend over the past 150 years. The orderly value, very simply, is the global thermal variation value, that is, what is now called Global Warming

As can be seen from 1900 to 1950, the trend is increasing. But industrial activity, the one that caused the greenhouse effect and everything else, was virtually absent at that time. There were no industries at that time.

Instead, from 1950 to 1970, the trend is decreasing, ie decreasing. And it decreases just during the period of maximum industrialization, in the period when man acts in a very marked way with industrial processes.

If the man were to cause the GW, it is obvious that the trend should be contrary, decreasing until 1950 and growing until 1970 ...

This means that Zichichi and Carlo Rubbia are right: it is not the man that determines with its action global warming, but are other causes from which global warming is born, and they are all natural.

Climate Change Mentions Are Deleted From the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Website

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website before and after, taken on June 14, 2017.

14 June, 2017. This is the second website to remove all mentions of the manmade catastrophe.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has made some subtle, but telling, changes on its website. It recently removed all mentions of climate change from its Tribal Climate Resilience Program website. Now, it is called Tribal Resilience Program.

Here’s an image of the original website:

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website before, taken on June 14, 2017.

And of the current one:

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website now, taken on June 14, 2017.

<...>

It’s unclear when exactly the site changed, but Internet archives show the old site as it read in May. The previous site said:

Mainstreaming climate change considerations into all Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) activities, and supporting federally recognized Tribal Nations to do the same, is a high priority for the administration and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Climate change will bring new challenges to Indian Country and Alaska Native Villages.

5 June, 2017. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe joined Brian Kilmeade to discuss President Trumps decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and said, "Climate is always changing, but the myth that the world is coming to an end due to climate change is a hoax." He went on to say that he's also is not surprised about Left's uproar over pulling out. "These are the same people perpetrating the myth theory." Senator Inhofe also sits on the Armed Services committee and said while not enough money has gone into that military he doesn't blame the President because he inherited a "Hollow Force" similar to what the U.S. was saddled with in the mid-80's.

Trump on Paris accord: 'We're getting out'1 June, 2017. <...>The decision amounts to a rebuttal of the worldwide effort to pressure Trump to remain a part of the agreement, which 195 nations signed onto. Foreign leaders, business executives and Trump's own daughter lobbied heavily for him to remain a part of the deal, but ultimately lost out to conservatives who claim the plan is bad for the United States. "In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but being negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction under terms that are fair to the United States," Trump said from the White House Rose Garden. "We're getting out. And we will start to renegotiate and we'll see if there's a better deal. If we can, great. If we can't, that's fine," he added. <...> In talking points delivered to Trump's allies, the White House characterized the Paris agreement as a job killer that placed undue burdens on American taxpayers. "The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President's action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first," the talking points read. "The accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy." <...> "The agreement doesn't eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of the United States and ships them to foreign countries," Trump said from the Rose Garden. "This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States." Source: edition.cnn.com